Sponsors of the OPEN Act Seek Input from the Public

December 8, 2011 -

As we mentioned last week Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Darrell Issa introduced an alternative bill to SOPA and Protect IP that would put the power of fighting so-called rogue web sites into the hands of the International Trade Commission. The OPEN Act (which stands for Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act) focuses on interrupting the flow of funds to web sites that are proven to be trafficking in counterfeit goods or copyright materials.

The OPEN Act would create an Internet piracy panel or court within the International Trade Commission that would deal with complaints from the Justice Department and rights holders. The ITC would investigate complaints from copyright holders and determine if the Web sites in dispute are "dedicated to infringing activity." If they find this to be the case, they can issue a cease-and-desist order. The Justice Department would then be able to "bring an action for injunctive relief." The Internet piracy court would be composed of judges appointed by the ITC who would be required to have "a minimum of 7 years of legal experience," who could only be removed from that position for "good cause."

The Oregon Democrat and California Republican hope that their legislation will provide technology companies and critics of entertainment industry-backed SOPA bill an alternative that they can get behind. The House of Representatives committee vote on SOPA is expected next week. An aide to Wyden told CNET that the proposal is still a discussion draft phase and represents a work in progress.

One of the things the sponsors of this bill are doing to make the bill transparent is putting it up on the web site KeepTheWebOpen.com for the public to examine. Their hope is that the public will examine it closely and offer suggestions on how to make it better.

There are groups that oppose the OPEN Act such as the RIAA and the MPAA, who really wanted the ability to block allegedly infringing sites in their toolbox. SOPA and Protect IP gave them those tools and more. The sponsors of the OPEN Act see those bills as an extreme overreach that asks too much of service providers.

More details on the OPEN Act are expected sometime this week.

Source: CNET


Comments

Re: Sponsors of the OPEN Act Seek Input from the Public

"There are groups that oppose the OPEN Act such as the RIAA and the MPAA, who really wanted the ability to block allegedly infringing sites in their toolbox."

Don't worry RIAA, MPAA, and others.  You'll still have the ability to block infringing sites.  You'll just have to prove their doing it first.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Sponsors of the OPEN Act Seek Input from the Public

Having to follow due process?  Being...REASONABLE?  What do you think we live in, a democracy?

Re: Sponsors of the OPEN Act Seek Input from the Public

Because you'd be wrong. Not that it matters, as the legal system is not directly dependent of the political one...

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
MattsworknameDitto kotaku, Gawker, VOX, Polygon, ETC07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MechaTama31So, between pulling a game from one chain of stores, and forcing editorial changes to a media source, only one of them strikes you as being on the edge of censorship, and it's the game one?07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
Andrew EisenHave gamers ever tried to ban a product? Can you be more specific? I'm not clear what you're getting at.07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
Mattsworknamethey should have expected some kind of blow back. But I didn't participate in that specific action07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MattsworknameAndrew Youd have to ask others about that, I actualyl didn't have much beef with them till last year, so I can't speak to there history. I simply feel that gamesutra chose politics over gaming and chose to make enimies of it's prime audiance. For that,07/28/2015 - 8:40pm
Andrew EisenI'm still not clear on how Gamasutra was lacking in accountability or what it was lacking in accountability for.07/28/2015 - 8:38pm
MattsworknameAndrew: You and I agree on most of that. I don't diagree that there should ahve been other actions taken. Now, I do want to point something out, casue Im not sure if it's happened. Have gamers ever tried to have a product banned?07/28/2015 - 8:37pm
Mattsworknameimproperly. Neither is good, but one is on the edge of censorship to me, while the other is demanding some level of accountability from public media provider. but thats just my view point07/28/2015 - 8:36pm
MattsworknameEZK: You can treat it as bullying or what not, As I've pointed out, I didn't like either practice, I made that clear. But I do hold some different between trying to pull a product from the shelves, and calling out a media outlet that you feel has acted07/28/2015 - 8:35pm
E. Zachary KnightMatt, So you feel confident enough to make the call that petitioning target to remove GTAV is "bullying and threatening" but not confident enough to make the call on Intel/Gamasutra. Finding it hard to take your gripes seriously.07/28/2015 - 8:27pm
Andrew EisenAs for gamers holding media sites accountable? If you mean, how to respond to opinion pieces you disagree with, yes, there are tons of more appropriate means.07/28/2015 - 8:27pm
Andrew EisenAgain, no one likes being lumped in with the bad apples. Gamers or feminists so lets all strive not to do that, yes? Could the petitioners gone about it a better way? Yes, it could have been more factual in its petition, for starters.07/28/2015 - 8:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician